White v. Leavitt et al, No. 2:2018cv00008 - Document 160 (D. Nev. 2023)

Court Description: ORDER granting in part and denying in part ECF Nos. 141 , 144 Motions to Compel. Defendants must provide (1) responsive documents to RFP Nos. 2 and 5, and (2) the incident report summarizing the "kite" filed in relation to the January 14, 2018 incident within 10 days of this Order (10/12/2023). Signed by Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler on 10/2/2023. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DLS)

Download PDF

White v. Leavitt et al Doc. 160 Case 2:18-cv-00008-JAD-BNW Document 160 Filed 10/02/23 Page 1 of 6 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 *** 4 TONEY ANTHONEY WHITE, 5 Plaintiff, 6 7 Case No. 2:18-cv-00008-JAD-BNW ORDER v. MICHELLE LEAVITT, et al., 8 Defendants. 9 Before the Court is Plaintiff Toney White’s Motion to Compel. ECF Nos. 141 and 144. 10 11 Defendants responded at ECF No. 149. No reply has been filed. 12 13 The case at this stage comprises of only one claim: that Defendants violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights by failing to protect him from an inmate. ECF No. 86. 14 The parties are familiar with the arguments surrounding the instant motion. As a result, 15 the Court will include them here only as relevant to this Order. 16 I. 17 ANALYSIS “[B]road discretion is vested in the trial Court to permit or deny discovery.” Hallett v. 18 Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002). The “scope of discovery” encompasses “any 19 nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the 20 needs of the case[.]” FED. R. CIV. P. 26(B)(1). Relevance is to be construed broadly. 21 Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978). The party seeking to avoid 22 discovery bears the burden of showing why that discovery should not be permitted. Blankenship 23 v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir. 1975). The party resisting discovery must 24 specifically detail the reasons why each request is irrelevant or otherwise objectionable, and may 25 not rely on boilerplate, generalized, conclusory, or speculative arguments. See, e.g., F.T.C. v. 26 AMG Servs., Inc., 291 F.R.D. 544, 552 (D. Nev. 2013). When a party fails to provide discovery 27 and the parties’ attempts to resolve the dispute without Court intervention are unsuccessful, the 28 opposing party may seek an order compelling that discovery. FED. R. CIV. P. 37(A). Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:18-cv-00008-JAD-BNW Document 160 Filed 10/02/23 Page 2 of 6 Plaintiff seeks to compel Requests for Production 2-5, 10-12, 17-19, and 30-36. ECF No. 1 2 141 at 4. Requests for Production Nos. 10-12 3 • 4 Request No. 10: Kindly furnish LVMPD’S inmate locator identifier card (dsd 6b 4- 5 13) of inmate Marland Dean 7024742 utilized while housed at CCDC. 6 Objections1: (1) vague and ambiguous, (2) “confidentiality of inmates” and 7 “requirement to redact records”—if records exist, no documents can be produced at 8 this time. • 9 Request No. 11: Kindly furnish LVMPD’s inmate locator identifier card (dsd 6b rev. 10 4-13) of inmate Kevin Wong 5410495 utilized while housed at CCDC. 11 Objections: (1) vague and ambiguous, (2) relevance, (3) confidentiality of inmates” 12 and “requirement to redact records”—if records exist, no documents can be produced 13 at this time. • 14 Request No. 12: Kindly furnish LVMPD’s inmate locator identifier card (dsd 6b rev. 4-13) of inmate Amanda Sexton 8270791 utilized while housed at CCDC. 15 16 Plaintiff argues that these requests “are relevant to demonstrate whether ‘DNHW’s’ were 17 noted on said cards.” Defendants state that they no longer possess these cards as these cards were 18 purged once these inmates were released from prison.2 In addition, Defendants explain that they 19 already produced the “Offender Non-Associations list” linked to him containing the name of 20 each person who would be housed in the same cell as Plaintiff and includes Kevin Wong, 21 Amanda Sexton, and Marland Dean. 22 The Court cannot order Defendants to produce what no longer exists. Acosta v. JY 23 Harvesting, Inc., No. 17-CV-1225-CAB-WVG, 2017 WL 3437654 *3 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2017). 24 Given this, the Court denies the objections Defendants stand on as moot. Defendants need not 25 1 27 Rather than include the entire objections to RFP Nos. 10-12, the Court took the liberty to summarize them as stated above. 2 The Court notes that this was not stated in Defendants’ responses to Plaintiff’s requests. In the future, the Court kindly requests that this search be done at the time of the requests and that, should the request no longer be available, that it be noted in the responses. 28 2 26 Case 2:18-cv-00008-JAD-BNW Document 160 Filed 10/02/23 Page 3 of 6 1 respond to RFP Nos. 10-12. Requests for Production Nos. 30-32 and 34-36 2 • 3 Request No. 30: Kindly furnish any and all video footage of CCDC housing unit 9b 4 on January 24th, 2018 from 1700-2359 hours. 5 Objections3: (1)“overbroad,” (2) “vague and ambiguous,” (3) “Defendants do not 6 possess video responsive to this request.” • 7 Request No. 31: Kindly furnish any and all video footage of CCDC housing unit 9b 8 on January 25, 2018 from 0320-0400 hours. 9 Objections: “Defendants do not possess video responsive to this request.” • 10 Request No. 32: Kindly furnish any and all video footage of CCDC north tower 9th 11 floor hallway and elevators on January 25, 2018 from 0600-1600 hours. 12 Objections: (1) “overbroad,” (2) “vague and ambiguous,” (3) “relevance,” 13 (4) “security risk,” (5) “Defendants do not possess video responsive to this request.” • 14 Request No. 34: Kindly furnish the video of January 14, 2018 depicting the assault 15 identified in request No. 33 above. 16 Objections: (1) “vague and ambiguous,” (2) “relevance,” (3) “confidentiality of 17 inmates and requirement to redact records,” (4) “Defendants do not possess video 18 responsive to this request.” • 19 Request No. 35: Kindly furnish any and all video footage of CCDC housing unit 9b 20 of January 24th through 26th, 2018 which depicts various black inmates confronting 21 plaintiffs assigned cell mate Nuoye Jordan No. 5588179 in threatening manners. 22 Objections: (1) “vague and ambiguous,” (2) “overbroad,” (3) “relevance,” 23 (4) “confidentiality of inmates and requirement to redact records,” (5) “Defendants do 24 not possess video responsive to this request.” • 25 Request No. 36: Kindly furnish any and all video and audio recordings recorded in 26 3 27 28 Rather than include the entire objections to RFP Nos. 17-19, the Court took the liberty to summarize them as stated above. 3 Case 2:18-cv-00008-JAD-BNW Document 160 Filed 10/02/23 Page 4 of 6 1 North Tower classification room No. 2 on January 25, 2018 as a result of defendant 2 Gonzalezs Miranda readings to plaintiff and containing the entire interview. 3 Objections: (1) “vague and ambiguous,” (2) “Defendants do not possess video 4 responsive to this request.” Plaintiff’s argument is based on (1) disbelief at the proposition that these videos are no 5 6 longer available and (2) Defendants’ duty to preserve evidence. Defendants argue that their 7 policies require them to maintain video for 60 days and audio (related to booking) for two years. 8 They explain that they did not learn of this lawsuit until July 28, 2022—over four years after 9 Plaintiff filed a grievance requesting the preservation of video. 10 As stated before, the Court cannot order Defendants to produce what no longer exists. 11 Acosta, 2017 WL 3437654 at *3. The parties’ arguments are more appropriate for a spoliation 12 determination, which is not at issue here. Given this, the Court denies the objections Defendants 13 stand on as moot. Defendants need not respond to RFP Nos. 30-32 and 34-36. Request Nos. 2, 3, and 5 14 • 15 Request No. 2: Kindly furnish the housing record of inmate Marland Dean No. 16 7024742 from February 03, 2016 through March 29, 2019. 17 Objections4: (1) “vague and ambiguous,” (2) “confidentiality of inmates’ criminal 18 records and requirements to redact.” • 19 Request No. 3: Kindly furnish the housing record of inmate Jimmy Kim No. 2061125 20 from October 01, 2017 through January 25, 2018. 21 Objections: (1) “vague and ambiguous,” (2) “relevance,” (3) “confidentiality of 22 inmates’ criminal records and requirements to redact.” • 23 Request No. 5: Kindly furnish the housing record of inmate Nuyone Jordan No. 24 5588179 from January 10, 2018 through March 29, 2019. 25 Objections: (1) “vague and ambiguous,” (2) “confidentiality of inmates’ criminal 26 4 27 28 Rather than include the entire objections to RFP Nos. 2, 3, and 5, the Court took the liberty to summarize them as stated above. 4 Case 2:18-cv-00008-JAD-BNW Document 160 Filed 10/02/23 Page 5 of 6 records and requirements to redact.” 1 As to RFP Nos. 2 and 5, Defendants do not appear to stand on any objections. Thus, 2 3 Defendants must turn over responses to RFP Nos. 2 and 5 subject to whatever confidentiality 4 measures were taken regarding RFP No. 4 (which Defendants agreed to produce). As to RFP No. 3, when the relevancy of a discovery request is not readily apparent, the 5 6 party seeking discovery has the burden to show the relevancy of the request. Shuckett v. 7 Dialamerica Mktg., Inc., No. 17CV2073-LAB(KSC), 2018 WL 4350123 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 8 2018). Plaintiff’s claim requires that he prove the following elements: (1) the defendant made an 9 intentional decision about the conditions under which the pretrial detainee was confined; 10 (2) those conditions put the pretrial detainee at substantial risk of suffering serious harm; (3) the 11 defendant did not take reasonable available measures to abate that risk, even though a reasonable 12 officer in the circumstances would have appreciated the high degree of risk involved—making 13 the consequences of the defendant’s conduct obvious; and (4) by not taking such measures, the 14 defendant caused the pretrial detainee’s injuries. Castro v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 15 1071 (9th Cir. 2016). Plaintiff’s brief does not provide an explanation as to how the housing record of another 16 17 inmate is relevant to his request. Thus, Plaintiff has not met his burden. The Court sustains 18 Defendant’s relevance objection. Defendants do not need to produce responsive documents to 19 this request. Requests Nos. 17-18 20 • 21 Request No. 17: Kindly furnish unredacted the incident report entered January 14th- 22 15th, 2018 involving inmate Stephen Gayles 7755094’s assault of another inmate 23 housed and protective custody. 24 Objections5: (1) “vague and ambiguous,” (2) “relevance,” (3) “confidentiality of 25 inmates’ criminal records and requirements to redact.” 26 5 27 28 Rather than include the entire objections to RFP Nos. 17-19, the Court took the liberty to summarize them as stated above. 5 Case 2:18-cv-00008-JAD-BNW Document 160 Filed 10/02/23 Page 6 of 6 • 1 Request No. 18: Kindly furnish unredacted all written and documented complaints 2 made by Stephen Gayles 755094’s victim of in custody January 2018 assault which 3 served the basis of Gayles disciplinary housing. 4 Objections: (1) “vague and ambiguous,” (2) “relevance,” (3) “confidentiality of 5 inmates’ criminal records and requirements to redact.” For RFP Nos. 17 and 18, the requests are not relevant on their face. Shuckett, 2018 WL 6 7 4350123. Plaintiff’s brief does not provide an explanation as to how the housing record of 8 another inmate is relevant to his request. Of note, these requests do not involve the Plaintiff or 9 the Defendants. In addition, the incident took place January 14, 2018, which is after the relevant 10 period (late 2017 to January 2018). Thus, Plaintiff has not met his burden. The Court sustains 11 Defendant’s relevance objection (and need not rule on any of the remaining objections on which 12 Defendants stand). Nevertheless, it will order defendants to produce what they have agreed to 13 produce: the incident report summarizing the “kite” filed in relation to the January 14, 2018 14 incident. See ECF No. 149 at 11. As to RFP Nos. 4, 19, and 33, Defendants have agreed to provide responsive documents 15 16 to these requests. As a result, these requests are moot. 17 II. 18 19 20 CONCLUSION IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion at ECF No. 141/144 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part consistent with this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants must provide (1) responsive documents 21 to RFP Nos. 2 and 5, and (2) the incident report summarizing the “kite” filed in relation to the 22 January 14, 2018 incident within 10 days of this Order. 23 24 DATED this 2nd day of October 2023. 25 26 27 28 BRENDA WEKSLER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.